Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1995

Democracy

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, let us hope the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois respect democracy. Because if they have the slightest respect for democracy, they will accept the outcome of the vote last Monday, and they will abide by the wishes of 73 per cent of Quebecers who want the Quebec government to work towards renewing federalism. That is democracy. Democracy spoke Monday night, and the Parti Quebecois should listen.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this from the Deputy Prime Minister of a government that, I may remind you, was formed by the party that introduced the War Measures Act in Quebec in 1970. We know your democratic propensities. A party that, through its Minister of Justice, tells us it will use a power now obsolete, the power of disallowance, to flout the authority of the Quebec National Assembly and ignore its decisions. And this party, which according to the Prime Minister would not have respected the results of the referendum, now wants to give us a lesson in democracy.

[An hon. member]

The nerve.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Are we to understand that because they have nothing to propose, because the provincial Premiers are starting to reconsider, because the government has no plan and because they know that next time, the Yes side will win, the government is desperate, and its only option is to deny the democratic system, either through the power of disallowance or by going before the courts?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what Anita Martinez thinks of democracy according to the Parti Quebecois. Anita Martinez is a 23 year old worker in Quebec who was accused by the Deputy Premier of Quebec of not being a real Quebecer.

Those people over there want to teach us a lesson in democracy, but we respect the results and we respect the fact that whether it is cast by a Nunez, a Martinez or a Lucien Bouchard, a vote is a vote, and the results of Monday night's democratic vote should be respected by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois.

Distinct Society

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last stretch of the referendum campaign the Prime Minister of Canada, along with several premiers of English speaking provinces, clearly implied that changes were coming in Canada, particularly the formal recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. It would appear that the Prime Minister is planning in the very near future to make a "motherhood" announcement of his intentions toward the distinct society.

Does the Prime Minister realize that bringing in any federal legislative measure whatsoever on the recognition of distinct society status will not offer any response at all to the legitimate aspirations of the Quebec people, for Quebecers want more than cosmetic changes with no true meaning?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, when will the party of the official opposition give up on continuing to fight a lost referendum, and when will it start addressing the true problems of Quebecers, which are problems of unemployment and problems of investment?

We face the official opposition here as a government which is attempting to develop Quebec and Canada, which is attempting to reduce unemployment. We know that Quebecers want us to renew federalism and want to see the economic situation improved. And the official opposition is continuing to debate arguments that were settled on the evening of the referendum. Quebecers decided democratically that they did not want out of Canada, and I implore the official opposition to return to the path of duty and to defend Quebecers, to help us create jobs and investments.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister talk about the real problems of Canadians, when the government is tabling no legislative measure whatsoever in response to those very problems?

Now, to my question. How can we have any faith in the Prime Minister when it comes to the distinct society, when his allies in English Canada wasted no time immediately after the referendum in diluting the content of the resolutions they had adopted in their legislative assemblies, particularly when we are familiar with the views of the Prime Minister, the man who killed Meech Lake, on the distinct society?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the person who changed sides, who jumped ship one month after the Meech Lake agreement, was the Leader of the Opposition.

It would be advisable, if the hon. member does not want to listen to the voice of the people as expressed in this morning's poll, for him to listen to the former leader of his party, Pierre-Marc Johnson, who today stated according to the Parti Quebecois that "the government ought to get busy instead with governing, given the unemployment situation and the pressures on the public purse".

If they will not listen to Daniel Johnson and the Liberals, they might at least listen to Pierre-Marc Johnson.

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian federalists must never get into any future contest with Quebec separatists-and regrettably there will be one more contest-as ill prepared and ill equipped as they entered the last referendum campaign.

If we are to keep this great country together, we have to fight the separatist dream with a federalist vision, not the status quo. We have to fight separatist deceptions not with panic or propaganda, but with the naked truth about what separation really means. The time to prepare the ground is before, not during some future campaign.

I ask the intergovernmental affairs minister, in this period prior to the next real confrontation with the separatists, what is the government going to do to make the real consequences of secession crystal clear to every Quebecer?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign the economic arguments against separation were done well. They convinced a large number of Quebecers that separation was not in their economic interests and would be very costly especially to the vulnerable elements in society the separatists say they want to defend.

What is more important is that federalism is not the status quo. Federalism has been flexible. We indicated in fact, not in words like the opposition, that we were ready to reduce the size of the federal government and we were ready to review the powers of the various levels of government.

We are presently doing that. The federalism test we have applied is presently resulting in all kinds of powers being reassessed between the federal and provincial governments.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it may be that some of the economic arguments on the dangers of secession were presented.

The sad fact is that on October 30 over 30 per cent of the people who voted yes thought they were voting for a new and better economic union with Canada rather than for a separate Quebec. The federal government and the no campaign failed utterly to get through to those voters on the negative implications of a yes vote. That simply cannot be allowed to ever happen again.

To prevent that from happening again, will the government begin to clearly and openly answer from a Canadian perspective all the what if questions which are raised by a Quebec secession and which I presented to the Prime Minister on June 8, 1994 prior to the last campaign?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the question asked was confusing. We said that during the campaign. A number of Quebecers who voted yes voted yes under the misapprehension that a partnership was possible and that it was a mandate to negotiate.

What is important now is not to relive the referendum. It is important now to see that we have to reform Canada. The government has not only agreed to that, but we indicated that especially in last February's budget where we re-established fiscal responsibility and where we indicated the future elements of decentralization that should take place.

We are not in favour of decentralization for the sake of decentralization. We are for decentralization to the extent that it serves the people of Canada by making the various levels of government more efficient. We will not move in the direction of decentralization without justification.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government can try to ignore 30 per cent of the yes people who thought they were voting for something else. I suggest that is keeping the government's head in the sand. That is not going to win the battle with the separatists the next time around.

Quebecers must know the Canadian position on terms and conditions of separation. Quebecers have to know the Canadian position on debt division, the Canadian position on boundaries, the Canadian position on protecting Atlantic Canada and the Canadian position on terms and conditions of trade.

Since over 30 per cent of yes voters thought they could keep all the benefits of Canadianism and vote for separation, will the government begin to spell out the Canadian position on terms and conditions of separation in order to make the negative consequences of separation clear to every Quebecer?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position includes Quebec. It is still part of Canada, thank God, after Monday night.

Even if the leader of the third party will not listen to members of the federal House who ask for his help in the rebuilding process, would he at least listen to the leader of the no forces, Daniel Johnson, who said yesterday: "Mr. Manning is playing into the hands of those who want to break up Canada by not recognizing some of the self-evident truths that this country is founded on". Please listen to Mr. Johnson and join team Canada.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, even though we are quoting someone else's statement, I would appreciate it if we would address each other by our ridings or our titles in the House.

Right Of Veto

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The day before yesterday, the Prime Minister stated in this House, and I quote: "I said it would be a veto for the people of Quebec". When questioned about the meaning of this statement, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested that we ask the Prime Minister himself for clarifications, because he was unable to tell us what the Prime Minister meant.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister clarify for us what the Prime Minister was referring to when he spoke of a veto for the people of Quebec?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is asking all kinds of questions about the promises made by the Prime Minister, but I can assure the Bloc that we will keep our word. We will stand by the Prime Minister's promise for change.

Let us just hope that the Bloc Quebecois will respect the result of Monday's vote, in which a majority of voters in Quebec said no to separation. They now want the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois to focus on the issues. Unemployment figures were released today. We should work together to find effective ways of dealing with the unemployment problem, instead of continually quarrelling about the constitution.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec regard as important the questions that we, as the official opposition, ask in this House.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain how the Prime Minister can refuse to clarify what he really meant with respect to the right of veto, when the minister responsible, one of the brightest members of cabinet, admits to not knowing what the Prime Minister was talking about?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, members may ask any question they want. The question the people of Quebec are asking themselves right now is: When will the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois start focusing on the economy?

We know for instance that the Parti Quebecois was prepared to put on the line billions of dollars from the Quebec old age pension fund, as Mr. Parizeau himself indicated when he said: "The defensive tools we are referring to certainly include the deposit fund. This, of course, represents a lot of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars". In fact, it is more like a few billion dollars. The Premier of Quebec was prepared to put on the line billions of dollars that Quebecers have contributed to the Quebec old age pension fund to further his own separatist ambitions, and the people have said no. Let us hope that he will respect their wishes.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government collects money from taxpayers in Quebec and other provinces. It then spends that money, after keeping some of it, on programs for manpower training, for immigration settlement and a whole range of programs, all with lots of strings attached that the provinces do not like.

My question is for any minister responsible for such spending programs. For the sake of unity, why do not the ministers responsible for this spending simply call up their counterparts in the provinces and say: "As of the first of next month we will send you the money, totally without strings attached, for you to spend any way in which you wish for the sake of unity"?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have to remind members of the third party that we were elected by Canadians like they were and Canadians did not ask us to implement every desire of the premiers of the provinces.

They asked us to act in their interests by spending the taxes we collect from all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians, not for the benefit of province a , b or c , in particular, but within province a , b or c , for the benefit of all Canadians. This is how we differ from provincial governments.

In this case the question to be asked is are the interests of Canadians being served well? The record is clear. The country we have created is the proof. As the federal government we have been serving Canadians right. There are some fields where the powers of the various levels of government must be reassigned. But it must be done for reasons of efficiency and service to citizens, not for reasons of ideology.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question did not reveal ideology. It reveals a new position in which this country is finding itself, one over which the last election was not fought. At that time we did not know how strongly

Quebecers felt about their desire to have control over these kinds of spending programs.

The ball game has changed. I would like to get to the question of spending another $750 million on yet another program that not only we cannot afford but also impinges on provincial sovereignty, namely spending on day care facilities.

When will the Minister of Finance cancel the program that not only destroys national unity, but ruins spending programs?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal of discussion in the House in the last few days about democracy. One clear responsibility of a democratic system is to respond to the desires of people as they express them at the ballot box.

In the last election in 1993 this party put forward a proposal for assistance to the provinces to enhance child care. In that way we could ensure a basic standard of development for children right across Canada regardless of the respective wealth of different regions. We want to ensure that in this new workplace where many families have both parents working, where there are many single parents who want to go back to work that need good care for their children, the federal government would provide assistance. The government does not want to impinge, does not want to take over. It wants to share, as we have always tried to do in this party.

In 1993 we received the mandate of 178 seats elected. That is why we are the government. That is why we intend to carry out a major investment in child care. It may not be the priority of the Reform Party but we happen to think that good care for children is a real priority for all Canadians.

Canadian Telephone Companies

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

As we know, several telephone companies ignored the CRTC's ruling or ban and allowed tens of thousands of Canadians to phone, at no cost, Quebecers to influence their vote on sovereignty.

Can the minister tell the House what penalties might be imposed to the telephone companies that violated the Quebec referendum act and ignored the CRTC's ruling?